Anonymous wrote:

Because the 2-11 vaccines will have come out November-ish and this gives people enough time to get their kids vaccinated. Plus the end of term is in January. It’s a one semester exception based on the fact that WE’RE IN A F-ING PANDEMIC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those posters saying three months isn’t a big deal, please spend some time volunteering or subbing in a high FARMS school. Three months is critical in many kids’ education. It would be eye opening for many and hopefully help you understand why this legislation is so dangerous.

You don’t even know what this legislation says, as evidenced by the past 12 pages. Spare me the lectures.

Please enlighten us since all of us clearly don't know what the legislation says and you are the expert here. I can't wait to read how I am wrong.

the legislation effectively says principal’s hands are tied if parents claim the are keeping their kids home due to “safety concerns.”

No it doesn’t. Cite the paragraph.

Not the PP but the resolution pretty much says this, and doesn't provide a rubric for when the schools can not allow an unexcused absence. (citation on the first page of this thread)

The legislation says it with fewer words. (.e.g, the school can allow excused absences beyond the normal ones in 5A DCMR § 2102.2, unrelated to a parent or family member being a close contact). (201.a.3.B.iv.)

Now your turn: What is the Council intending these additional absences be about, other than what the resolution says they are about? Are you being obtuse or disingenuous enough to suggest that the resolution never existed and its language isn't subject to interpretation?

The key words you seem to be missing is that the school can allow it. Just like the school currently allows folks to take a “heritage vacation” for 2 weeks without reporting them. Or Janney allows for any number of excuses absences. If the school has concerns the school is not at all prohibited from referring to CPS.

Oh and it ends in January.

Why does it end in January? There is no reasoning why, in the resolution or the legislation, that it would end in three months.

Why is even three months of no requirement for education acceptable to the Council?

Because the 2-11 vaccines will have come out November-ish and this gives people enough time to get their kids vaccinated. Plus the end of term is in January. It’s a one semester exception based on the fact that WE’RE IN A F-ING PANDEMIC.

Hmmm...do you believe this vocal minority will actually vaccinate their children, or even be satisfied with the safety once they are vaccinated? Certainly there are some, but there will be others who will argue that it still isn't safe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those posters saying three months isn’t a big deal, please spend some time volunteering or subbing in a high FARMS school. Three months is critical in many kids’ education. It would be eye opening for many and hopefully help you understand why this legislation is so dangerous.

You don’t even know what this legislation says, as evidenced by the past 12 pages. Spare me the lectures.

Please enlighten us since all of us clearly don't know what the legislation says and you are the expert here. I can't wait to read how I am wrong.

the legislation effectively says principal’s hands are tied if parents claim the are keeping their kids home due to “safety concerns.”

No it doesn’t. Cite the paragraph.

Not the PP but the resolution pretty much says this, and doesn't provide a rubric for when the schools can not allow an unexcused absence. (citation on the first page of this thread)

The legislation says it with fewer words. (.e.g, the school can allow excused absences beyond the normal ones in 5A DCMR § 2102.2, unrelated to a parent or family member being a close contact). (201.a.3.B.iv.)

Now your turn: What is the Council intending these additional absences be about, other than what the resolution says they are about? Are you being obtuse or disingenuous enough to suggest that the resolution never existed and its language isn't subject to interpretation?

The key words you seem to be missing is that the school can allow it. Just like the school currently allows folks to take a “heritage vacation” for 2 weeks without reporting them. Or Janney allows for any number of excuses absences. If the school has concerns the school is not at all prohibited from referring to CPS.

Oh and it ends in January.

Why does it end in January? There is no reasoning why, in the resolution or the legislation, that it would end in three months.

Why is even three months of no requirement for education acceptable to the Council?

Because the 2-11 vaccines will have come out November-ish and this gives people enough time to get their kids vaccinated. Plus the end of term is in January. It’s a one semester exception based on the fact that WE’RE IN A F-ING PANDEMIC.

Anonymous wrote:The conspiracy theory in me believes this got passes with charter money, part of the charters' ongoing efforts to weaken the education system so money gets redirected to charters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those posters saying three months isn’t a big deal, please spend some time volunteering or subbing in a high FARMS school. Three months is critical in many kids’ education. It would be eye opening for many and hopefully help you understand why this legislation is so dangerous.

You don’t even know what this legislation says, as evidenced by the past 12 pages. Spare me the lectures.

Please enlighten us since all of us clearly don't know what the legislation says and you are the expert here. I can't wait to read how I am wrong.

the legislation effectively says principal’s hands are tied if parents claim the are keeping their kids home due to “safety concerns.”

No it doesn’t. Cite the paragraph.

Not the PP but the resolution pretty much says this, and doesn't provide a rubric for when the schools can not allow an unexcused absence. (citation on the first page of this thread)

The legislation says it with fewer words. (.e.g, the school can allow excused absences beyond the normal ones in 5A DCMR § 2102.2, unrelated to a parent or family member being a close contact). (201.a.3.B.iv.)

Now your turn: What is the Council intending these additional absences be about, other than what the resolution says they are about? Are you being obtuse or disingenuous enough to suggest that the resolution never existed and its language isn't subject to interpretation?

The key words you seem to be missing is that the school can allow it. Just like the school currently allows folks to take a “heritage vacation” for 2 weeks without reporting them. Or Janney allows for any number of excuses absences. If the school has concerns the school is not at all prohibited from referring to CPS.

Oh and it ends in January.

Why does it end in January? There is no reasoning why, in the resolution or the legislation, that it would end in three months.

Why is even three months of no requirement for education acceptable to the Council?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those posters saying three months isn’t a big deal, please spend some time volunteering or subbing in a high FARMS school. Three months is critical in many kids’ education. It would be eye opening for many and hopefully help you understand why this legislation is so dangerous.

You don’t even know what this legislation says, as evidenced by the past 12 pages. Spare me the lectures.

Please enlighten us since all of us clearly don't know what the legislation says and you are the expert here. I can't wait to read how I am wrong.

the legislation effectively says principal’s hands are tied if parents claim the are keeping their kids home due to “safety concerns.”

No it doesn’t. Cite the paragraph.

Not the PP but the resolution pretty much says this, and doesn't provide a rubric for when the schools can not allow an unexcused absence. (citation on the first page of this thread)

The legislation says it with fewer words. (.e.g, the school can allow excused absences beyond the normal ones in 5A DCMR § 2102.2, unrelated to a parent or family member being a close contact). (201.a.3.B.iv.)

Now your turn: What is the Council intending these additional absences be about, other than what the resolution says they are about? Are you being obtuse or disingenuous enough to suggest that the resolution never existed and its language isn't subject to interpretation?

The key words you seem to be missing is that the school can allow it. Just like the school currently allows folks to take a “heritage vacation” for 2 weeks without reporting them. Or Janney allows for any number of excuses absences. If the school has concerns the school is not at all prohibited from referring to CPS.

Oh and it ends in January.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Can you link to that?

https://lims.dccouncil.us/downloads/LIMS/47923/Meeting1/Enrollment/B24-0403-Enrollment3.pdf

So please explain the difference between the signed resolution versus this, in terms of which takes precedent.

Also this does not include the specific language in the OP quoted resolution, but does allow for schools to permit any absence as excused. It seems to apply to short term scenarios here (family members being close contacts, etc). What would stop the back door virtual option person from just saying her family was in close contact repeatedly until January (or beyond)?

Yeah I don’t see how this changes anything.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those posters saying three months isn’t a big deal, please spend some time volunteering or subbing in a high FARMS school. Three months is critical in many kids’ education. It would be eye opening for many and hopefully help you understand why this legislation is so dangerous.

You don’t even know what this legislation says, as evidenced by the past 12 pages. Spare me the lectures.

Please enlighten us since all of us clearly don't know what the legislation says and you are the expert here. I can't wait to read how I am wrong.

the legislation effectively says principal’s hands are tied if parents claim the are keeping their kids home due to “safety concerns.”

No it doesn’t. Cite the paragraph.

Not the PP but the resolution pretty much says this, and doesn't provide a rubric for when the schools can not allow an unexcused absence. (citation on the first page of this thread)

The legislation says it with fewer words. (.e.g, the school can allow excused absences beyond the normal ones in 5A DCMR § 2102.2, unrelated to a parent or family member being a close contact). (201.a.3.B.iv.)

Now your turn: What is the Council intending these additional absences be about, other than what the resolution says they are about? Are you being obtuse or disingenuous enough to suggest that the resolution never existed and its language isn't subject to interpretation?

The key words you seem to be missing is that the school can allow it. Just like the school currently allows folks to take a “heritage vacation” for 2 weeks without reporting them. Or Janney allows for any number of excuses absences. If the school has concerns the school is not at all prohibited from referring to CPS.

Oh and it ends in January.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those posters saying three months isn’t a big deal, please spend some time volunteering or subbing in a high FARMS school. Three months is critical in many kids’ education. It would be eye opening for many and hopefully help you understand why this legislation is so dangerous.

You don’t even know what this legislation says, as evidenced by the past 12 pages. Spare me the lectures.

Please enlighten us since all of us clearly don't know what the legislation says and you are the expert here. I can't wait to read how I am wrong.

the legislation effectively says principal’s hands are tied if parents claim the are keeping their kids home due to “safety concerns.”

No it doesn’t. Cite the paragraph.

Not the PP but the resolution pretty much says this, and doesn't provide a rubric for when the schools can not allow an unexcused absence. (citation on the first page of this thread)

The legislation says it with fewer words. (.e.g, the school can allow excused absences beyond the normal ones in 5A DCMR § 2102.2, unrelated to a parent or family member being a close contact). (201.a.3.B.iv.)

Now your turn: What is the Council intending these additional absences be about, other than what the resolution says they are about? Are you being obtuse or disingenuous enough to suggest that the resolution never existed and its language isn't subject to interpretation?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those posters saying three months isn’t a big deal, please spend some time volunteering or subbing in a high FARMS school. Three months is critical in many kids’ education. It would be eye opening for many and hopefully help you understand why this legislation is so dangerous.

You don’t even know what this legislation says, as evidenced by the past 12 pages. Spare me the lectures.

Please enlighten us since all of us clearly don't know what the legislation says and you are the expert here. I can't wait to read how I am wrong.

the legislation effectively says principal’s hands are tied if parents claim the are keeping their kids home due to “safety concerns.”

No it doesn’t. Cite the paragraph.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those posters saying three months isn’t a big deal, please spend some time volunteering or subbing in a high FARMS school. Three months is critical in many kids’ education. It would be eye opening for many and hopefully help you understand why this legislation is so dangerous.

You don’t even know what this legislation says, as evidenced by the past 12 pages. Spare me the lectures.

Please enlighten us since all of us clearly don't know what the legislation says and you are the expert here. I can't wait to read how I am wrong.

the legislation effectively says principal’s hands are tied if parents claim the are keeping their kids home due to “safety concerns.”

Anonymous wrote:Remember Backdoor Virtual poster? She got what she wanted.